SpeakOut is Truthout's treasure chest for bloggy, quirky, personally reflective, or especially activism-focused pieces. SpeakOut articles represent the perspectives of their authors, and not those of Truthout.
Standing there on November 19, 1863, in front of those who had come to sanctify yet another bloody battlefield, President Abraham Lincoln should have spoken the truth. He should have ended his dedication, the Gettysburg Address, by declaring “that government of a few people, by a few people, and at the expense of certain people, shall not perish from the earth.” But like many others who carried out the policies of Manifest Destiny, mythical ideologies are easier to believe than the harsh realities of conquest and genocide. They also help justify glaring social inequalities and economic disparities for those already governing through powerful political, economic, and military institutions.
Just before traveling to Gettysburg by railroad to deliver his well-planned words, Lincoln had randomly selected thirty-eight Dakota Sioux leaders to die in the largest mass public hanging in US history. Lincoln, always the politician, had promised their lands to constituents that raised him to the presidency, wealthy monopolists and free-soil settlers. At Lincoln’s request, Congress passed the 1862 Homestead Act, transferring two hundred million acres of Indigenous lands to states, settlers, and railroad and mining and cattle industrialists. Before long, they were slaughtering Indigenous peoples while also ravaging their resources and food supplies.
You might not know this from reading most media coverage of 2014 midterm elections, but the world's two wealthiest men just bought US Congress. Oligarchy is now official, with a nefarious new force behind much of the Republicans' madness in Washington. Amazingly, leading Democrats are advancing the same agenda by pushing a pipeline that could double the fortunes of America's two top plutocrats.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Public Citizen today called on (PDF) the US Federal Election Commission (FEC) to close a loophole of its own making in the federal “pay-to-play” law against campaign contributions from businesses that land lucrative government contracts.
In response to a complaint filed last year by Public Citizen against Chevron – a major government contractor – the FEC ruled that a separately incorporated member of a corporate family may dip into corporate coffers to make campaign contributions if it holds no government contracts, while another separately incorporated subsidiary or affiliate solicits and receives lucrative government contracts. Chevron and a handful of other government contractors relied on this ruling to make campaign contributions in the 2014 elections to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC closely aligned with US House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) dedicated to electing Republican candidates to Congress.
Payette, Idaho — “I’ll do whatever I want” and “fuck you” were the responses from one of the nation’s top oil and gas industry attorneys when asked not to touch a news camera.
The incident occurred in the hallway of the Payette County Courthouse in Payette, Idaho, following a meeting of the county commissioners on November 17, 2014.
Your conspiracy theorist friend isn't looking so paranoid anymore. The New York Times reports on the continuing surge in the US government's use of undercover agents:
"The federal government has significantly expanded undercover operations in recent years, with officers from at least 40 agencies posing as business people, welfare recipients, political protesters and even doctors or ministers to ferret out wrongdoing, records and interviews show."
I see Kevin Drum is unhappy about my endorsement of postal banking as a way to address the Postal Services financial problems. Kevin correctly points out that the Inspector General's (IG) argument for postal banking didn't involve conventional savings and checking accounts, but rather more narrow financial services:
"1) payment mechanisms (i.e., electronic money orders), (2) products to encourage savings, and (3) reloadable prepaid cards. The first is fine, but not really 'postal banking.' The second is problematic since even the IG concedes that the reason poor people tend not to save is 'largely due to a lack of disposable income among the underserved.' That's quite an understatement, and it's not clear what unique incentives the postal service can offer to encourage savings among people who have no money to save. That leaves prepaid cards—and maybe a good, basic prepaid card sponsored by the federal government is a worthwhile idea. But that's really all we have here."
U.S. politicians and pundits are fond of saying that America's wars have defended America's freedom. But the historical record doesn't bear out this contention. In fact, over the past century, U.S. wars have triggered major encroachments upon civil liberties.
Shortly after the United States entered World War I, seven states passed laws abridging freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In June 1917, they were joined by Congress, which passed the Espionage Act. This law granted the federal government the power to censor publications and ban them from the mail, and made the obstruction of the draft or of enlistment in the armed forces punishable by a hefty fine and up to 20 years' imprisonment. Thereafter, the U.S. government censored newspapers and magazines while conducting prosecutions of the war's critics, sending over 1,500 to prison with lengthy sentences. This included the prominent labor leader and Socialist Party presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs. Meanwhile, teachers were fired from the public schools and universities, elected state and federal legislators critical of the war were prevented from taking office, and religious pacifists who refused to carry weapons after they were drafted into the armed forces were forcibly clad in uniform, beaten, stabbed with bayonets, dragged by ropes around their necks, tortured, and killed. It was the worst outbreak of government repression in U.S. history, and sparked the formation of the American Civil Liberties Union.
October 9, 2014 marked the end of an era for Boston's homeless, ill and marginalized residents when the sole bridge to Long Island was closed after a state inspection declared it too unstable for vehicles. One of several small islands ("Harbor Islands") of the Massachusetts Bay, Long Island's geographic separation from the mainland has made it a prime location for isolating social outcasts over the years. In 1882, the City of Boston purchased property on Long Island for an almshouse, a residence for unwed mothers, a chronic disease hospital, a nursing school and a "Home for the Indigent." In subsequent decades, a treatment center for alcoholics was added. Recently, it's the site of homeless shelters, Boston Public Health residential facilities and a variety of residential programs for "recovering" addicts and people involved with the Courts.
Reachable only by limited shuttles, Long Island effectively served to keep homeless and sick people out of sight and out of mind for over a century. In recent years, people who stay at the various shelters cannot get to the Island before 2 PM or after 9 PM; once there, they cannot leave if the shuttles aren't running; and on most days, shelter residents must depart the Island no later than by the 9 AM mainland-bound shuttle.
Political language can be used, George Orwell said in 1946, "to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." In order to justify its global assassination program, the Obama administration has had to stretch words beyond their natural breaking points. For instance, any male 14 years or older found dead in a drone strike zone is a "combatant" unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving him innocent. We are also informed that the constitutional guarantee of "due process" does not imply that the government must precede an execution with a trial. I think the one word most degraded and twisted these days, to the goriest ends, is the word "imminent."
Just what constitutes an "imminent" threat? Our government has long taken bold advantage of the American public's willingness to support lavish spending on armaments and to accept civilian casualties in military adventures abroad and depletion of domestic programs at home, when told these are necessary responses to deflect precisely such threats. The government has vastly expanded the meaning of the word "imminent." This new definition is crucial to the U.S. drone program, designed for projecting lethal force throughout the world. It provides a legal and moral pretext for the annihilation of people far away who pose no real threat to us at all.